Arch Eurosceptic Tory MEP Martin Callanan seems to be mellowing in his views on Europe, now that he is gaining practical experience of how the EU actually works rather than his previous preconceptions. He is quoted in the Evening Gazette as welcoming a Commission initiative to ban the import and export of cat and dog fur in the EU, saying "this shows that where there is a will to effect change, coupled with a strong support for a shift in the law, the Commission is prepared to listen to a well presented case".

This comes on top of his victory with his amendment to allow the continued use of mercury in barometers. This is not an amendment that I agree with, but it certainly showed Martin that EU law is not dictated by the European Commission, as Eurosceptics are wont to claim, but adopted through democratic procedures involving elected governments in the Council and directly elected MEPs in the Parliament.

One man that is not for changing though is the moustachioed Member Roger Helmer, who has been quick to show his disgust at some of his fellow MEPs, and launched an astonishing attack on his leader David Cameron, for supporting a stronger version of the EU's chemicals legislation (known as REACH).

In a letter to a newspaper the right-wing rogue wrote: "Mr Cameron is quite reasonably seeking to enhance his party's green credentials, the proposed "stronger substitution principle" which he espouses makes Reach substantially more damaging. I first learned that Mr Cameron expected his MEPs to vote for a stronger Reach during his speech at the party conference in October, and I was shocked. As a life-long Conservative, I want to support industry, which delivers jobs, pensions and the taxes that fund our public services, and I will continue to do so. I am simply not prepared to vote for a green gesture that will do far more harm than good."


Despite the fact that the tighter chemical legislation will make the continent a healthier and safer place, industrial workers, and indeed the general public as a whole, the ones adversely affected by the myriad of chemicals we know little or nothing about in our environment, obviously do not receive quite as much support from him.

The funeral of my constituent David Wilson took place today.

I got to know David and his wife Tracey very well after he was wrongly imprisoned in a Greek jail in 2003.

David was jailed after 19 Iraqi Kurds were found in the back of his lorry at a Greek port. Despite each of the Iraqi Kurds signing a statement saying they entered David’s lorry without his knowledge, he was jailed for 11 years.

As David was totally innocent, he was eventually acquitted on appeal, but not before suffering the horrendous ordeal of months in prison far from his family and the permanent loss of his lorry and livelihood.

David never recovered from his ordeal and tragically took his own life last week. My thoughts are obviously with his family who also suffered greatly because of this great injustice.

It is now crucial to ensure something like this never happens again.

David would not have gone through the ordeal that led to his death if the EU’s Framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings for people charged in other Member States had already been in force.

This proposal would guarantee that anyone facing criminal charges abroad has access to their country’s consular services and are given a qualified interpreter and legal advice.

Both were lacking in David’s case. He was charged and sentenced within 24 hours under a fast-track procedure that he accepted under duress, with a local shopkeeper as interpreter and without advice from the British embassy or sufficient legal advice.

This proposed EU law would prevent others from having to go through what David did. It should be wholeheartedly supported and governments should get a move on in at last agreeing this proposal which has been on their table for a few years now, held up by the need for unanimity among the governments of 25 countries. Britain should support the European Commission’s proposal to speed up consideration of this matter, as the House of Lords has suggested.

Those who point to Switzerland as a model of a country thriving outside the EU (here, here and here are just a few examples) have remained curiously silent about the referendum held there last weekend, where Swiss voters approved an increase in Swiss contributions to the EU budget. They approved, by 53%, a government proposal to give an extra one billion Swiss francs (630m euros) in aid to the 10 new members of the European Union.

The idea that you could simply benefit from the single European market by trading with it from outside without participating in common policies, is often advocated by Eurosceptics, quoting Switzerland as an example. But this shows that it ain't so simple.

The rest of Europe has always made it clear that Switzerland cannot just cherry pick its favorite advantages of the EU without contributing and has insisted, among other things, that it pays up to the structural funds – the deal that ensures that less prosperous regions and countries also benefit from the opening up of the single market.

Switzerland applied to join the EU years ago, and although it has never withdrawn that application, it has preferred to stay outside for now. But it cannot free-load in the way that Eurosceptics advocate. Its net budgetary contribution is, per capita, greater than most Member States. It participates in a number of EU common policies, accepts much EU legislation (but, as a non-member, with no voice in shaping and adopting it) and even joined the EU’s “Schengen” passport free travel area.

Hardly “escaping” from the EU in the way that Eurosceptics envisage!

The government is about to take a position on the issue of switching to QMV (qualified majority voting, where the EU Council of Ministers can take decisions by over 71% of the votes) instead of unanimity (100% of the votes) for some types of EU decisions in the field of judicial co-operation. This would be a possibility if the so-called "Passarelle" (bridge) clause of the current treaties were used to transfer matters from the EU’s “Third pillar” to the “Community Pillar”. Under the latter, governments have the option of changing from a procedure requiring unanimity in the Council of Ministers and no parliamentary approval to one allowing QMV with parliamentary approval. It should also be pointed out that Britain anyway has the right to opt-in or stay out of measures adopted in this field of policy.

The House of Lords EU Committee has pointed out that there is a problem in resisting change to QMV in fields where, under the protocol for Britain and Ireland, we anyway have the right to opt-in or out of the decisions taken. The Lords report on this matter said that as “the UK would not have to participate in proposals brought forward, the Government will need to consider carefully whether the UK should stand in the way of other member states deciding to transfer criminal law competence to the Community”.

The Lords also point to the advantages of QMV in terms of decision taking. They point to the paralysis suffered by the requirement for unanimity among 25-27 national governments highlighting the time taken to agree the European evidence warrant and the failure to make progress on the framework decision on procedural rights in criminal proceedings for people charged in other member states. The Lords report says – “we believe that the proposal deserves careful examination and caution against any knee-jerk reactions resulting from media coverage”.

The Law Society also considers that “the full incorporation of the Justice and Home Affairs pillar into the Community structure offers the best guarantees that the rights and freedoms that are in the interests of individuals will be balanced against the security concerns of the member states”.

It is therefore all the more shocking to read the language used by the Commons scrutiny committee. Granted, this committee has always attracted rabid Eurosceptics like Tory MPs Bill Cash and David Heathcoat-Amory, but it has generally had a pro-Europe majority. Yet, it is now arguing against the proposal , describing the “passarelle” as a “gangplank” and questioning “whether it would be acceptable for the European Parliament to have the right of co-decision on measures (…) when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of the UK”?

This is a remarkable argument. By analogy, from a Welsh (or a Scottish) perspective, is it acceptable for the Westminster Parliament to take decisions when most of its Members do not represent and are not answerable to the electorate of Wales (or Scotland)?

Whatever level a decision is to be taken, the Parliament of that level should be involved. If a matter is to be decided at EU level (which we should decide on objective usefulness or otherwise of having common decisions in these areas), then the European Parliament will be involved - and of course it contains non-Brits!

Michael Connarty MP, the (Scottish) Labour chair of the Committee, may find he is inadvertently giving succour to SNP diatribes against Westminster!

I thought the Treasury was going to get its comeuppance in a spectacular way with the European Court of Justice ruling this week on where tax should be paid (the country of the seller or the country of the buyer) for internet orders, notably alcohol and tobacco, across national borders in the European Union.

For years, the Treasury has argued the merits of "tax competition" between countries, and has opposed any suggestion of harmonising tax rates within the single European market. Well, they would have had tax competition in spades had the Court of Justice ruling gone the other way, as much of the media had anticipated. As it is, there will still be opportunities for people to purchase goods in countries with lower rates of taxation whenever they travel, although they will not be able to do it from their arm chair over a computer.

But let us be clear. These different rates of indirect tax within a single market do mean that British tax rates on, say, alcohol and tobacco can be undercut by our neighbouring countries. This means that millions of pounds and thousands of British jobs have been lost by the white van run to Calais, stocking up on cigarettes and alcohol to bring back to Britain for personal consumption (legal) and sale (illegal). It also means that the Treasury has lost billions of pounds in revenue, in turn meaning either a cut in services or a rise in the rate of other taxes.

"Tax competition" between countries inevitably means a race to the bottom in terms of what tax rate you set. This may have superficial attractions in some quarters, but in reality undermines the ability of governments to find a suitable balance between different forms of taxation and undermines their ability to use tax as a disincentive for smoking and excessive drinking.

Surely it is not totally unreasonable to suggest that, in a single market, a single rate (or at least a minimum rate) of excise duty and VAT is sensible? No one is suggesting common rates of direct taxation (income tax) - only of indirect taxes where variable rates can create market distortions.

This view is gaining ground in Britain. The British Retail Consortium has called for excise duty rates to be harmonised across the EU to create "a level playing field". The Chartered Institute of Taxation has referred to "the long-term unsustainablity of significantly different excise duty rates is self-evident in a union which allows free movement of goods and people". The Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers says problems "arise because of duty differentials across Europe. All sides need to work towards greater parity". (all quoted in YP 24 Nov)

Indeed, the EU treaty provides for harmonisation of indirect taxation (though not direct taxation), but by unanimous agreement among the member states. In other words, there is no question of any tax rate being set that does not meet with the approval of the British government. In those circumstances it would seem sensible to agree to discuss this matter with other countries to see if there is any possibility of agreeing on harmonised rates, or a higher minimum rate, precisely to
avoid major domestic policies being undermined.

The Court judgement has made this problem less acute than would have spectacularly been the case had it gone the other way. Nonetheless, the problem has not disappeared altogether. We should have the courage to address it.

Personally, I've never paid too much attention to the Conservative selection process for Westminster candidates, but things have taken a new twist since David Cameron's failed attempts to pull his MEPs out of the European People's Party.

Due to boundary changes, two "stalwarts" of the Tory party were forced to go head to head for the new Thirsk and Malton seat. John Greenway (current MP for Ryedale), who is an outspoken Eurosceptic, and Anne McIntosh (current MP for the Vale of York), who is a former MEP.

Surely, if we are to believe what we are told, grassroots Tory activists wouldn't dream of supporting a pro-European if there is a viable alternative available. Wrong. Ms McIntosh won the battle, and comfortably at that.

As Cameron prepares to attend his first meeting with EPP "colleagues", he could be forgiven for being more confused than ever.

For anyone used to the politically motivated diatribes against the European Union that pervades so much of our national press, it comes as a refreshing surprise to browse through written specialist and trade press where a quite different attitude to Europe is often on display.

Thus, I noticed that Electronics Weekly (8th Nov) says that:

"With the coming into force of the RoHS directive this year, the European Union can be proud that its electronics industry has, for the most part, responded admirably… electronic equipment now being produced will not have a harmful legacy for future generations. Europe's determination to implement green policies, when the easy option is to do nothing, also benefits the entire world as other countries try to follow Europe's lead and environmentally aware multinational companies are standardising on RoHS compliant products to sell worldwide'.

The journal Public Private Finance says (13th Nov) that, as regards recycling, EU pressure on Britain is highly beneficial - indeed, the UK "deserves to be punished. The UK's record on recycling is shameful. It dumps more rubbish on landfill sites than virtually any other EU country. Some 75% of local authority rubbish, about 26m tonnes, was land filled in the UK in 2003-4, compared with 38% in France and just 20% in Germany."

New Scientist, in a leading article (11th Nov), criticises the Common Fishing Policy, not on the usual grounds that it has restricted fisherman fishing by imposing tough quotas, but on the grounds that it has not been tough enough. It says:

"Early one morning next month, bleary-eyed European ministers will probably allow fishermen to take just enough of the few cod left to allow the depleted fishery to stagger on. If they followed scientific advice for a ban on cod fishing, the number of cod would grow, and after a few years catches would boom. But that would involve short-term sacrifice, and no minister will bite that bullet. We need mechanisms to make them. Europe pays farmers not to farm but to be stewards of the countryside. Why not do the same for fishermen?"

The Grocer magazine also carries an article on the Common Fishing Policy, contending that it is actually working, at least for some stocks, albeit not yet for cod.

Computeractive (9th Nov) praises EU plans to lower carbon emissions and cut the EU's energy consumption by a fifth by 2020. It supports suggestions that manufacturers should be - 'forced to label the energy efficiency of their products so consumers can decide to opt for low-energy models. The proposed regulations would impose EU standards globally because manufacturers seeking to sell their products in the EU would have to comply with these "minimum energy performance standards".'

Lloyd's List (8th Nov) praises plans to redefine sea voyages between EU member states as national rather than international as a 'huge step forward for the protection of EU seafarers jobs'.

Yet, not all is bliss for the EU in the specialised press. Marketing Week (9th Nov) quotes the European Automobile Manufacturers Association as campaigning to stop the EU from tightening laws reducing carbon emissions from new cars. It says that consumers prefer 'larger, safer vehicles' to 'fuel efficient' ones. And, "rather than have the EU regulate anything, let's have some more global warming", they might well have added.

I was delighted to see Ed Balls's initiative today on EU financial management. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury has taken up the European Parliament's suggestion that each Member State government take full auditing responsibility for its own EU budget spending (80% of EU spending is carried out by national governments).

He has announced that the UK will do this. It will in future provide a written statement on how EU funds have been spent in Britain. This statement will have to be cleared by the National Audit Office.

In doing so, Britain will lead by example. Other EU governments will find it difficult to resist pressure to do likewise. Indeed, Ed said he would urge all other member states to follow suit when he meets fellow finance ministers in Brussels on Tuesday.

He also warmley welcomed the House of Lords Report which I mentioned in my blog last Tuesday (14 November). This, he said, "serves to dispel some popular myths about fraud and corruption in the EU", which the Lords indeed said was minimal.

But financial management systems can be improved, especially at Member State level where most of the problems of not fully complying with procedures has occured. As Ed Balls said: "While we have been making some progress, it's not fast enough."

Well done, Ed!

My website has been expanded and gone through a mini-redesign to make it more accessible. Hopefully people will continue to use it as a resource for information about the EU and continue to learn more about the work an MEP does.

To reflect the current political climate I have expanded the Key Issues part of the site, with specialist pages now dedicated to the environment, REACH, anti-discrimination, animal welfare, the EU’s accounts amongst other things.

Also a reminder to have a go on the quiz which can be and if anyone has any amusing tales from the Parliament, Europe on politics in general then email me them at richard@richardcorbett.org.uk

I am delighted that my fellow Labour MEPs have re-elected me as their Deputy Leader. Only a write-in vote for "Ronnie Corbett" denied me a completely unanimous re-election. Evidently, I must be careful not to garner a reputation for long-winded, rambling speeches littered with weak jokes!

Leader Gary Titley was also re-elected by a large majority. We serve a term of office that lasts until the 2009 European elections.

Curiously, it means that each major UK political party has a Leader or Deputy Leader in the European Parliament from Yorkshire, with Timothy Kirkhope in charge of the Conservative MEPs and Diana Wallis of the Liberals.

Tory MPs who pander to hard-line Eurosceptics in the hope of dissuading UKIP from putting up candidates against them in the next election are set to be disappointed. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has just announced on 18Doughty Street that UKIP will put candidates up against Tories whatever their views on Europe.

Previously, Farage had stated that UKIP would not stand against signatories to the anti-European "Better Off Out" campaign, contrary to the wishes of a substantial proportion of his party. Had his U-turn taken place 18 months ago, then, in my home town of Shipley, Labour's Chris Leslie would have defeated Better Off Out signatory Philip Davies at last year's general election.

UKIP estimates that there were 21 constituencies where the decision of UKIP to stand resulted in the Conservatives failing to win the seat.

Whatever the accuracy of these estimates, the deision to stand everywhere means that there is no point in Tory MPs pandering to them. Rather, they will need to stand up to them and demolish their arguments. But don't count on it: many of them have spent so long parroting UKIP that they wouldn't know how to put a reasonable fact-based pro-European argument together!

Perhaps that is why Farage boldly claims that UKIP will be the largest party after the 2009 European Elections, based on the (rather questionable) logic that, having doubled its share of the vote in the past two European elections, achieving this again would give it 32 per cent of the vote in 2009.

This is slightly at odds with the party's declining membership (down from 27,000 at the height of the Kilroy media frenzy to a mere 16,000). This averages at a mere 20 per constituency and would seem to indicate that, with Europe not currently at the top of the political agenda, UKIP's strategy is basically to attract disaffected right-wing Conservatives.

Still, he did at least have the honesty to admit that "UKIP is good at raising money for campaigns" - but Paul Sykes's millions won't turn UKIP into a credible political party!

For years, one of UKIP's main lines of attack has been that "the European Commission is so corrupt that its books have not been signed off by the auditors for the last 12 years".

With this in mind I'm looking forward to them giving a statement on this week's report from the House of Lords, which finds "no evidence to support this suggestion".

According to the Lords, the problems that have prevented the auditors from signing off the books, comes not from corruption but from other problems and an inadequate system of auditing that gives an inaccurate, negative impression.

Sir John Bourn, head of the UK National Audit Office, stated that he would not be able to sign off the accounts of the UK Government should he have operated the same system here.

The Lord's report calls upon the European Court of Auditors to:

- Make a clear separation between the audit of the Commission's accounts - which has always been positive - and the statement of assurance on the regularity and legality of underlying transactions - which has always been qualified in certain specific fields

- Give separate verdicts on each different category of spending, instead of one overall verdict

- Make a clear distinction between fraud and other kinds of irregularity, giving separate figures for each

- List member states which demonstrate poor management of EU funds


Far be it from me to contradict an in-depth report from the national parliament of a sometimes sceptical Member State. But I would expect UKIP to rubbish it. Yet maybe even they are backing off: only one UKIP MEP was present in the Parliament this morning to hear the President of the Court of Auditors present its report - usually something UKIP focusses on - and even he didn't stay to hear the reply to his question.

Is UKIP backing off? Are they running out of genuine things to criticise? Has even their vivid imagination deserted them?

Over the past couple of months readers of this blog will have realised that immigration has becoming an increasingly discussed issue, and one that also affects a large amount of people.

Tonight's episode of Inside Out (a current affairs programme on the BBC) is an immigration special and should be well worth watching for anyone who has previously taken an interest in the subject.

You can catch it from 1930 to 2000 (GMT) on BBC1.

When the BBC's Inside Out webpage is updated you will be able to learn more about the show by clicking here

I spent some of Friday at PATH, a charity which is celebrating 21 years of helping Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people overcome barriers and fulfil their employment potential by offering Positive Action Training.

PATH is in part funded by the European Social Fund and it is nice to see EU money used so successfully with the charity having made a real impact across West Yorkshire since 1985.

Increasingly, employers are going to PATH in order to help realise a truly representative workforce, something many still struggle to do genuinely, with the likes of ITV and Customs and Excise benefiting from the charity’s expertise.

I met with PATH manager Hughbon Condor, chair Elain Gentles, and Fundraising and Marketing Manager Bronagh Campbell to discuss how the charity can access new European funding and how it can expand its outstanding work into more of the private sector.

There is still under-representation of BMEs in the West Yorkshire workforce, particularly in more senior roles, something PATH is working to change.

For more information on PATH and to see if you are eligible for one of PATH’s courses visit their website at www.pathyorkshire.org.uk

Following the meeting we decamped to Maureen’s West Indian Restaurant in Chapeltown, for a sumptuous lunch which gave me the chance to try curried goat for the first time, and I can heartily recommend it!

It is fashionable in some pro-European circles in Britain to attribute the recent rise of popularity of the EU in opinion polls in Britain to the fact that two tricky issues seem to have been removed from the agenda: accession to the euro, and the Constitutional Treaty.

It was indeed an uphill struggle, at times, to argue the case on these important but complex matters. But pro-Europeans should not for one moment think that these issues have disappeared forever.

We can certainly stay out of the euro in the short-term but in the long-run staying out means losing out. And now that the euro appears to have overcome some teething problems, the terms of this debate may well alter over the coming years.

Similarly, for the Constitutional Treaty. It may have been kicked into the long grass following the French and Dutch referendums, but the 'period of reflection' comes to an end next June when the European Council summit is due to examine a way forward on this issue. Meanwhile, various countries have continued the ratification process and by next June eighteen are likely to have done so. They will want to keep the constitution intact, or as intact as possible. But even if that is not possible, the issues that the Constitutional Treaty was intended to resolve have not disappeared and Member States will have to return to the questions of how to make the EU function more effectively as it approaches 30 Member States, how to improve its democratic accountability and how to make it easier to understand for citizens.

In theory there remains a wide range of possible options, and it is certainly premature now to decide which one of them might be politically feasible next year or later. But two main variants are emerging in the debate. One is re-negotiating the draft constitutional treaty (simply adding protocols to it seems to be an option that is fading). This would take some time and the negotiations would be protracted and complex.

The alternative is to adopt quickly a 'mini-treaty' focusing on the less controversial institutional changes that are necessary to pursue the further enlargement of the European Union. These would be modest and would not rise above the threshold that would trigger referenda in certain countries. In other words, they would give no new responsibilities or competencies to the European Union, whose remit would remain unchanged, but would streamline the institutions (notably a smaller Commission), reform voting procedures and the rotating presidency in the Council and improve democratic accountability.

Interestingly, the items contained in this second option are all issues that would, in any case, have to be addressed in the context of the next accession treaty - presumably with Croatia. The current treaties (as last amended by the Treaty of Nice) contain no provisions for new member states beyond Romania and Bulgaria. If the issues haven't been solved before that, the Croatian accession treaty will anyway have to settle how Croatia will be represented in the institutions. This means that the voting system in the Council will have to be reviewed, (with many countries advocating the system all governments agreed to in the constitutional treaty), reviewing the size of the Commission (which has to be reviewed anyway in 2009 under the current treaties) and the rotation system for the Presidency of the Council and the European Council.

Of course, ratifying an accession treaty will be less controversial than a general Constitutional Treaty, even if the later was no more than a collection of about a dozen useful reforms. There is no reason why an accession treaty should not contain 'emergency repairs' to the EU system, while leaving more fundamental reform to a more long-term process.

The TUC hosted an information evening for migrant workers in Hull’s Trade Union Studies Centre last night, with the emphasis on helping the eastern-European community understand their rights better.

Humberside, and Hull in particular, has been a popular destination for migrant workers because it is one of the main centres of food production in the country.

Along with some traditional Polish food there was advice on housing, joining a union and improving English skills.

And is quite clear is just how crucial language skills are, with almost all of the problems migrants have faced exacerbated by a lack of English.

Without good English there are obvious implications for health and safety while at work, but better language skills help integration, and mean people understand their rights and are able to better communicate problems they have to the authorities – meaning far less exploitation.

Bearing this in mind, East Riding College deserves congratualtions for its Get On At Work programme, which offers literacy, numeracy and langauge programmes. Ever since Hull became a popular destination for migrants they have been providing a variety of English lessons, many at the request of the employers themselves.

An additional bonus from these lessons is that some employers are seeing the benefits a commitment to adult education can have and are now offering all their workers the chance to learn and gain qualifications at work.

With the EU’s chemical legislation (REACH) to go before Parliament before the end of the year, the results of a timely investigation into the damage caused by chemicals has been released by scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health.

The scientists believe they have identified 202 different chemicals that can cause brain damage while the effects of low-level exposure to them worryingly remains unknown. They have also called for limits of exposure to be recommended to pregnant women and small children.

As anyone who has been following the progression of the REACH Directive will know, many of these chemicals are from everyday household products from cans to make-up.

This recent Harvard study is one of countless examples of how imperative chemicals legislation in Europe (and the world) is and the considerable benefits better regulation and testing will have on our health.

Both the Telegraph and Independent have more on the Harvard study on their websites.

An article in the European Voice by Hans Martens (subscription required), chief executive of the European Policy Centre, recently caught my eye by strongly arguing that EU economies are in a good shape.

Martens’s article focused on a study by the Economist Intelligence Unit and the Columbia Program on International Investment which showed the EU attracted nearly three times more foreign direct investment (FDI) then any other economic area.

In 2006 417billion euros of FDI was put into the EU, compared with 150billion going to the US, 13,5billion to Brazil, 17.5billion to Russia, 7.96billion to India and 69.25billion to China. Better still, it is predicted that Europe will maintain this considerable level of FDI in 2010.

Martens also highlights the World Economic Forum’s competitiveness index which again shows how strongly EU economies are performing, despite the commonly held view they are struggling. The index is based on both short-term growth prospects and potential for sustainable long-term wealth creation. Nine European countries are in the top 15 with the likes of Brazil, China and India well down the list.

The doom merchants have long been predicting trouble for the EU's economy, particularly for those countries in the eurozone, but in fact Europe is attracting massive investment and is well positioned to maintain its strong position in the long-term future.

Saturday’s European Policy Forum in Sheffield was a great success with over 100 people in attendance and everything from the Tinsley towers to climate change in Kenya discussed.

The forum gives myself and my colleague Linda McAvan MEP the chance to report back about our work in the Parliament and what we achieved over the last year.

Two other themes of this year’s event were multiculturalism and migration with Dutch MEP Jan Marinus Wiersma speaking about the former and TUC Regional Secretary Bill Adams talking about the latter.

Like the UK, Holland is in a debate about multiculturalism, which became highly charged following the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a religious fundamentalist, and Jan Marinus stressed how dangerous the current, narrow, media-spun view of Islam is. Yet, positive role models, like PSV Eindhoven football player Ismaïl Aissati are helping Holland understand and talk about Islam away from the stereotypes that so normally abound.

The afternoon then focused on migration with Linda's researcher, Chris Read, offering a plethora of statistics which gave an illuminating portratit of the current situation in the UK.

Of the eastern-European migrants that have come to the UK, 82 per cent are aged between 18 and 34 with 93 per cent arriving with no dependents. The most common statistic banded about by the media is that there is thought to be 600,000 migrants from eastern-European EU countries in the UK but one example of how statistics can be misleading is the fact that those leaving are not even counted!

Most worrying though is the fact that 78 per cent only earn between £4.50 (which is of course well below the minimum wage) and £5.99 an hour.

Bill Adams then concentrated on the problems some eastern-European immigrants have suffered and left much of the room shocked at the levels of exploitation by unscrupulous employers occurring in this country.

One of many horror stories featured an agency which charged so much money for signing-on fees, administration and rent (for a bed in a room with up to eight others) that some workers were left with a big fat zero in their pay packet. Not wanting to miss another insidious trick the agency then offered the exploited workers loans with exorbitant interest rates. Other agencies have been telling workers that joining a trade union is illegal.

As I have mentioned before on the blog the trade unions are aware of the problems and have taken the lead to inform migrants and British workers about their rights.

But these incidents also show why we need to agree on the proposed EU Temporary Agency Directive, which has been held up for some time by deadlock between governments in the EU Council of Ministers. It's high time for movement on this issue!

Fish have been dominating the news this week with good news for salmon countered by a stark warning that the world’s fishing stock will be exhausted by 2050 if current levels of fishing continues.

Following a complaint to the European Commission, the Irish government acted to ban drift-net fishing off the country’s coast which was seriously depleting European salmon rivers, not least in Britain – a good example of how fishing policy cannot be a purely national matter.

Anyone who saw the BBC’s excellent documentary Trawlermen earlier in the year can empathise with the fisherman who do an incredibly hard job for increasingly little reward. Without fish there will be no fishing industry. Like it or not, strict limits on fishing, agreed and applied by all, are essential to the survival of the industry.

Each year the Commission proposes a quota for the Common Fishing Policy and almost without fail the governments of Member States ignore the scientific advice to stem criticism from back home and agree on more lax quotas.

By trying to keep everyone happy in the short term we are failing to safeguard fish stocks for the future. But without fish there will be no fishing industry.

“Babies for sale, sex slaves, bribery, mob killings, drug factories, organised crime ... now Romanian and Bulgarian mafias have Britain in their sights.”

Just another example of the calm measured tones the right-wing tabloids have been using to slur Romania and Bulgaria ahead of their accession to the EU next January.

Of course what makes this particular piece all the more galling is that it was in the Sun, owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News International.

In September I blogged about another News International newspaper, The News of the World, and how three of their journalists had actively sought out Bulgarian prostitutes willing to travel to the UK so they could pen another shock horror story about the EU’s two newest members.

So remember, come January, if any of these terrible things the Sun so gleefully promises us do turn up in the UK it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that journalists from News International have invited them here!